Hannity is one of the lesser of the sell outs!

Jaded reports: “.I was told I cannot talk about Redstate and definitely NOT Crist as he is a friend of Sean’s show and then it occurred to me why should I a loyal listener to both his radio and FOX show not speak of Crist and his liberal policies?”

This is why Rush has never moved his show to DC and why his is not a guest driven show.

We need an Andrew Jackson, or we are lost as a nation because just, “One man with courage makes a majority”

Jaded,

I posted to Hannity’s site about your article. I told them that I was shocked that it happened and asked why would this be their policy. Not long after I questioned them, I got the following message telling me that I was now banned from Hannity:

I wonder if the Hannity Show has been taken over by liberals?

Hannity is just an entertainer. Obama is the best thing that happened to Hannity. Money changes people.

to me the only time I called. She asked if I was a liberal and when I said no she hung up on me while I was trying to say what I was calling about. I think the screener is just jerk, no biggie.

Hannity’s a hack (which is useful, but he is)

once he sinks his teeth into a subject he won’t let go — even when letting go would allow him to get a better grasp of the subject.

while I like some of what he has done, he simply repeats the same things over and over and over… without ever learning himself…

…he was the first to grasp the Ayres/Obama connection and yet he never grasp the real importance of that story — it doesn’t matter what
Ayres did when Obama was a child…what matters is that he NOW has a say in the curricula taught in all public schools — and his radical leftist views have not changed…

I once heard Bill O’Reilly on his radio program refer to unnamed “some Conservative talk radio hosts” who pretended to be conservative for the ratings. He said flat-out that Rush Limbaugh was NOT one of these, but didn’t divulge any names. I’ve always wondered who he was referring to. I guess if Hannity were one of those, O’Reilly would certainly be “in the know”. Notice that O’Reilly doesn’t claim the mantle of conservative (he says “traditionalist”), and he and Hannity never appear on each other’s shows.

I don’t know what to conclude here about Hannity, it could be just jerk screeners as mentioned above, or they may have just been looking for kook liberals to put on the air to make them look bad. But it certainly bears some scrutinizing of Hannity’s conduct to look for other cues.

Great post!

…that O’Reilly said that. Makes me wonder because he does par on the same thing that sometimes you end up turning him off – and he sometimes turns off the public against Conservatives because he won’t let an issue go. That’s kind of like reverse psychology…

…and now…we’ve enter the Twilight Zone…

I’ve met him twice now and he is as sweet, warm and regular as anyone can be … he is a gem!

Sean Hannity is the real deal!

www.jeannie-ology.com

for several reasons, and they all have to do Hannity. He wants to exploit the conflict – an exploitation which is akin to tabloid sensationalism. He wants to try to generate some excitement to jack up his ratings so the stations that carry him can sell higher-priced ads and Hannity can get a nice fat raise come contract renewal time.

I used to really enjoy his show, but he has really worn thin the last couple of years. I’d rather listen to Laura Ingrham, Mark Levin or Rusty Humphries (unfortunately not on the air in my market). At least they can be humorous, something Hannity never quite mastered. I even find Bill Cunningham’s show more interesting than Hannity’s.

His TV show has gotten even worse since Colmes left. Instead of putting Kirsten Powers in Alan’s place, Hannity had to have the entire show be about HIM. Even Bob Beckel or Juan Williiams as a Colmes replacement would have been preferable to what Hannity’s doing now.

Hannity has the same problem that Savage does. It all has to be about HIM HIM HIM.

- JP

autograph both of his books for me and had a short conversation. Sean struck me as being very sincere and very genuine (and business has taught me to spot a phony fairly quickly).

Having said that, I do agree with the posters upthread who said that he tends to be a one-trick pony who repeats the same points over and over again and really never gives fresh insights (I often think of when Rush talks about being ‘show prep’ for the rest of talk radio) so my ‘tuning in’ has dropped recently.

Rush on the other hand, even though his pomposity schtick wears on me at times, continually comes up with fresh and new insights (I am amazed how often I find myself thinking “I’d never thought of that angle before”) and he is absolutely the king of illustrating liberal absurdity by being absurd.

I have been listeniing to Sean for years. Recently I have started noticing cpl of things…
1>Sean is heavily into PC stuff. Contrast that with Beck and Rush…. These guys don’t shy away from saying what they believe in. Even if that costs them.
2>Sean is looking for screaming, stupid liberals to get on his show so that he can repeat his standard mugged-up responses. Contrast that with variety of questions that Rush takes….
3>When was the last time you saw Sean come up with insightful analysis of a crisis. Take North Korea situation for example. I noticed a couple of callers ask him what Bush did in response to North Korea. To my surprise he did not have a coherent response.

He wants to keep his club members/guests happy. He can’t have a right-winger on his show… criticize Crist? NO…..

Try this…. summarize Rush’s show and Sean’s show… You will need pages to cover Rush and would have to refer back to the audio because some things are thought provoking and show a different perspective…. for Sean you could summarize in 4-5 bullet points…

Weird timing…. I skipped Sean’s show after a long time… Maybe I won’t be able to take his monotonous talking points anymore…

but his show is often unlistenable. Where you get the very clear impression that Rush’s Pompousity is faked (and, let’s face it, just darn funny), Sean is like the Tyra of Conservative talk radio.

Which is too bad, because I think if he dug a little deeper on some issues (as has been said up thread, he tends to deal with the surface issues without really going into the important stuff), he’d be great.

I’m not surprised, really, that you didn’t get through, Jaded. Sean, in general, wants either sycophants or slobbering liberal morons on the phone.

If we are ragging on Hannity. I don’t listen to him much either, and it’s unfortunate you had a bad experience with his screener.

But cmon people. For every Hannity, there are literally THOUSANDS of left wing kool aid drinkin BUSHLIED liberal zombie talking head conformists!!!

We should have higher priorities than to discount Hannity.

Over 50 million people believed all the phony headlines about Obama. They drank the kool aid. They believe headlines like GOSPEL.

Unlike the small group of studious conservatives here at Redstate, tens of millions of people will only believe sound bytes, headlines, and phrases that get repeated.

We need a few thousand more Hannitys.

Again, Hannity may not be intellectual nourishment for Redstaters but he is very valuable to the other 50 million voters we need that don’t pay attention.

His screener was polite and I actually got on fairly quickly. This was last year and I asked him a question about McCain backtracking on something or other. Anyway, I agree to a certain extent with some of the upthread posters. Sean does tend to get repeat a lot of the same points and this can get tiresome. I understand the need to carefully screen calls so that they are in line with the topic and of course Sean loves the liberal takedown (as do I). But, there is absolutely no excuse for a screener to be rude to a caller, particularly a caller who is obviously a loyal listener. Just bad business practice. You end up with posts like this on Redstate.

My 2 cents is I rarely listen to Hannity on the radio & don’t own a TV, but I agree with Common Cents, above, in that not every radio host will be as brilliant as Mark Levin or Rush. I do not doubt Sean’s conservatism at all, but for the well-informed he adds less value than either Levin or Limbaugh.

Anyway, thanks for fighting the good fight but in the end it appears that Sean desires strict control of his content, and so far it has been working for him.

I dedicate my new sig line to you:

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

It’s just that he comes across as too glib. Instead of in depth analysis of a topic. He simply just spouts off his canned phrases about whatever given topic comes up. Then sometimes, he tries to shoehorn them in there when it’s completely unrelated. It bugs me.

That being said, he must be doing something right, having the 2nd biggest radio audience next to you-know-who. It just doesn’t resonate with me.

Okay, being a reverse sexist, he’s really cute in person.

His speech was good and enjoyablebut I can’t say it was memorable.

Jaded, the convention was a BLAST. There were over 11,000 Virginia Republicans there – all of them hungry to take back the Commonwealth and the nation.

the screener asked me if I was going to see him in Richmond and I said no I would be seeing Glenn Beck on the 6th in Richmond and she said don’t mention that either

Please Jaded, Keep Your Fire.

or

Bill O’Reilly who not only used a commenters words to tar and feather HotAir he then did a half you know what apology and then http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/30/oreilly-loses-his-taste-for-internet-cops/

“Patterico then took Bill at his word and paid good money to join Bill’s site (note that we don’t charge people to read Hot Air) and did a little internet policing of his own.
Did Patterico get a high-five from the Factor for his intrepid work in pointing out hateful comments? Not exactly:
I wish I could share today’s “BillOReilly.com blog posting” . . . but my membership has been terminated …
Oh, wait. I just reviewed the Terms and Conditions again, and I believe I have found the relevant language: “4. Do not expose Bill O’Reilly as a rank hypocrite.”

They may be better for OUR SIDE but just like all things in the beltway WE MUST KEEP THEM HONEST!!!!

is that while “Great Americans” aren’t defined by 9/11, his show is. I swear, I can abstain from his show for months, tune in again, and it’s just like I never missed even ONE of the three hours a day he asks.

The number of liberal callers to conservative talk shows has dropped to zero. Ever since Obama was elected, they absolutely refuse to call any of the talk shows.

What the callscreeners are trying to do is come up with a diverse number of callers, which is incredibly hard when 99.9% of everyone calling is conservative.

I like Hannity and used to like him a lot, but two big things have led me to take him with a grain of salt and occasionaly a little resentment.

First, I would guess about 2 years ago Fr. Eutenour (poor spelling) of some Catholic organization chastised Hannity a bit for talking about being Catholic all the time, while at the same time espousing birth control, which is not kosher with the church. The priests point was that he should not be adversting his Catholicism and then casually flauting disagreeement with the church’s teaching.

Now, the point can be debated – but instead of debating, when Hannity did the interview with this priest instead of any sort of thoughtful debate, he started slamming the priest for being a hypocrite because priests were out molesting little boys. The move showed that for all his faux humility Hannity could not accept real criitizism and it also showed that without an intellectual or spiritual response, Hannity will resort to the worst sort of bullying and ad homin attack.

The second big thing for me was Hannity’s campaiging for Rudi so heavily in the days before Rudi took it on the chin. I figure Rudi was the party fav and Hannity is pretty much a party guy. But Rudi and “Reagan conservatism” just seemed polar opposite to me and not a little bit disengenous.

Bottom line is he uses his Catholicism to make me think he is a Catholic as I define the word, and he uses his “Reagan conservativism” to make me think he is a conservative in the way I define the word. I would suppose there are Catholics who think he is plenty Catholic and don’t mind his bullying a priest with arguments that my 12 year old can see through. Since there is nary a consensus on what conservatism is, I am sure there are many “conservatives” who didnt mind him shilling for Rudi either. Ultimately – he is neither a strong Catholic or a “Reagan Conservative” to me and I just don’t respect him as much as Beck, or Ingram, or Levin, or Rush, or even the crusty old Savage. I know there are too many people who will change their belief (ie become less conservative or less catholic) becuase they think Hannity is genuine, and I don’t like the deception.

But I still tune in to get the news of the day when I dont have a good book on tape to listen to.

Guys like Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh are entertainers, and their first priority is money. If they could have made more money in their careers by marketing themselves as liberals, they’d be liberals. Hannity is more interested in getting a hot, divisive call from a liberal than he is discussing conservative principles beyond the few superficial wedge issues on his cue cards.